Madison wrote:So because Florida acted first, that means the other 49 states think the book is ok? Do I really need to point out how flawed that logic is or did you post that and simply hope I'd overlook it?
Did you read the story? The arresting sheriff states "the other 49 states may not be able to do anything about this", implying that Florida is the only state in the Union that carries the law they plan on enforcing. This, of course, begs the question, "If that Florida law can stop people from writing a book like this, and if everyone in the country pretty much agrees that books like this suck, then why don't the other 49 states have this law, too?" Of course, the answer is "They know its unconstitutional and would only result in rogue political officers wasting taxpayer money to pursue something which will eventually be overturned." But that didn't stop Florida, did it?
Madison wrote:True, the other books have faced the same legal challenged and remained available. None involve raping a child. And generally, the entire country has agreed that raping a child is wrong (until now of course).
This book doesn't involve raping a child either. I mean, I'm pretty sure he's not being arrested for raping a couple boys in preparation for writing this book. Am I wrong?
Madison wrote:As to the other child raping book, I didn't even know it existed until the news hit on the book we are discussing. I'd venture a guess I'm not the only one who had never heard of it. Regardless, I'm sure that the other book will be read by someone with the authority to prosecute, and if found to be worth prosecuting, they'll do it. Just depends on how the book is written and if it is worthwhile.
Sure, the public outrage is playing a part, and it should. The morals of the country play a huge part in who we are and are a big reason why laws are even made. I mean if we didn't think it was wrong to kill someone we didn't like (or better, if we didn't think it was wrong to kill worthless idiots - like pedophiles), there would be no law against murder. But our morals say it is wrong to kill, so we have a laws against it. If the government doesn't act in the ways we want them to, they will be replaced, so of course part of why Florida is prosecuting is due to the public opinion. And this idiot won't be able to hide behind "free speech" laws, as much as you might want him to be able to.
You're mixing two matters. Public outrage should create laws, not create mob justice. When the masses create an overarching law (First Amendment) that supersedes a law like the one in Florida, then creation of that law is a waste of time and an attempt to enforce it based solely on public outrage is nothing less than mob rule. Something I feel you have always had a major problem accepting is that our laws often give a single, lone person the right to do something that 999,999 people don't like. That's what separates a real society from an angry, fickle mob. Sure, it sucks. I'd love to have seen that lady who was harassing that dying little girl get dragged into the street and beaten to within an inch of her life, but our laws give her the right to be an asshole.
Ever see the movie Law Abiding Citizen? If so, remember the part where the father drugged the rapist killer and cut him into tiny pieces? That is the biggest expense we should go to while dealing with this idiot. So yes, I do dislike the fact we have to waste thousands of dollars in court, rather than simply killing this worthless vermin.
You can ignore my point about wasted money all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that going after this guy is a waste of money and someone like you should be appalled by it.
Wrong link? Not sure what you were trying to show me. Lots of different stuff there.
... you need to look a little closer.